Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

[Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>]

Larry McVoy wrote:
> Seems like you either have no problem or you aren't disclosing the whole
> story.  I really don't understand why there is a problem here.   100%
> GPLed is OK, so why do you have a problem?

It seems that you have a very hard time seing why I would be defending
something when I'm not making any $ out of it. RMS isn't making any $
from GPL software. Is he then hiding something?

The problem isn't what I do with it. The problem is Linux's usage in
this application field. Beyond what I do with it, there's Linux's
usage in the embedded field and the freedom that comes with its use.
Linux is simply not being put to use in that field. Our everyday lives
continue to be controlled by devices which no ones knows what runs
in them. Apart from Windows, our entire society is based on software
which we have never seen. Planes, cars, satellites, phones, etc. are
all running some sort of OS which we've never seen (so to speak).
How good is this to any of us?

> > Thanks Larry, that's really helpful. Instead of finding actual arguments,
> > researching the mailing lists, asking potential rt users, doing
> > some background checks
> 
> Err, I was on the program committee for Usenix which rejected (over
> my heated objections) the RT/Linux paper.  Their idiotic comments were
> "it doesn't do posix so it sucks".   See Linus' comment about drivers,
> I share that point of view.  Drivers are not for people who want to be
> programming in userspace.
> 
> My point is that I've been watching this area for a long time, I know
> who you are, I know what RTAI is, I know the timelines, and while I'm
> sure there are many people who know it all in much more detail than I,
> I'm hardly what you'd call ignorant in the area.

Well, for one thing, I didn't call you an ignorant. I'm glad you are aware
of the facts. I can't say I support/disapprove of Usenix's decision (since
I wasn't there) and I certainly have no objection in FSMLabs making money
out of their work, as I said previously many times on the rt mailing lists.
But when it comes to using a patent to tie Linux's entire future in one
field of application to one vendor and one vendor only, I have a very strong
objection.

> > My own personnal future is certainly not at stake here,
> > but Linux's is.
> 
> Personally, if I were depending on RT/whatever for my business, I'd be
> much happier getting it from someone with a business model that makes
> sense.  It's in my best interest to know that they are going to be there
> tomorrow, with enough revenue to develop and support the product.  So
> in that sense, I couldn't disagree more.

I won't elaborate on this, but I understand why you disagree.

Karim

===================================================
                 Karim Yaghmour
               karim@opersys.com
      Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================